The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, along with several high-ranking Hizbullah leaders, will have significant repercussions across the region. Hizbullah has been a key player in what is known as the Axis of Resistance, a coalition aligned to varying degrees with Iran and its Revolutionary Guard Corps, forming part of Iran’s strategic assets in its confrontation with both the US and Israel. Hizbullah’s focus on fighting Israel, especially its northern part, in addition to its role in Lebanon’s internal struggles, has long posed military and political challenges for Israeli decision-makers, regardless of the intensity of this burden at different stages of the conflict.

Hizbullah will probably be preoccupied for some time with the fallout from Nasrallah’s death: rebuilding its leadership structure, revising internal systems such as communication protocols, leadership distribution on the ground, and restoring its image in the region. All of this will undoubtedly be at the expense of its engagement with Israel. In addition, Israel’s ability to carry out previously targeted assassinations of Hizbullah leaders suggests either a major Israeli intelligence breakthrough or a critical security failure on Hizbullah’s part.

While these points are undeniable, what cannot be accepted without scrutiny is an assumption quickly put forward by Netanyahu following the assassination, when he claimed that “killing Nasrallah is a necessary step to alter the balance of power in the Middle East.” He reiterated this notion again after Nasrallah’s death was confirmed. Despite the significance of this development, as explained above, the question of shifting power dynamics is an entirely different matter.

First, determining shifts in power dynamics is a complex process depending on several factors, chief among which is military strength. Although the concept of power has evolved, and changes in military tools have led to a corresponding shift in the relative importance of various aspects of military power, the latter still remains a core component of overall power, and thus, of any balance of power. These elements do not change in the short term, as they are systemic in nature. The assassination of a political or military leader of a non-state actor does not fundamentally alter the broader balance of power.

Secondly, no balance of power exists in a vacuum. The concept cannot be understood without clearly identifying the parties involved. There is a balance of power at the global level between major powers, just as there is a balance of power at the regional level among key players within a specific region. When Netanyahu speaks of a shift in power dynamics following Nasrallah’s assassination, he must therefore clearly state who is involved in this balance.

A plausible change in the balance could involve one of two scenarios: a shift in the balance between Israel and non-state actors like Hizbullah and Hamas, which is conceivable in the short term; or a shift in the balance between Israel and the so-called Axis of Resistance, which includes Iran and its proxies or allies. However, even in this scenario, it is premature to assert such a shift both because the balance of power must account for hard power — military, economic, and otherwise — between these actors and because the current situation is governed by the specific calculations surrounding the use of force.

Thirdly, while the balance of power is typically associated with military or comprehensive capabilities, this should not overlook the importance of domestic factors and their impact on the state’s overall power. This reality underscores the influence of internal conditions in Israel. Israel’s current political instability undoubtedly affects the balance of power Netanyahu refers to. This opens up the question of whether Netanyahu’s assertions are politically motivated, driven by internal political rivalries rather than strategic calculations.

Netanyahu’s claim that Nasrallah’s assassination — or even the elimination of other non-state actors in the region — will result in a significant shift in regional power dynamics is highly exaggerated. His statements appear to be more of a political message, designed to project an inaccurate narrative. This calls for a careful and critical approach to understanding the implications of Nasrallah’s death.

To avoid falling prey to such misleading political messages, we must return to the core principles of balance of power theory, one of the most significant concepts in international relations, to assess the accuracy of these claims. The balance of power is influenced by many factors, and Netanyahu is well aware of this. So let’s not be tricked.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 3 October, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly